User talk:James mccosker

G'day James mccosker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events if you would like to know more then email help@wikimedia.org.au.

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location based notices, you can add location userboxes to your userpage.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up!

Thanks for your work on MacArthur Central. If you need any help, please ask me. Kerry (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Customs House Port Adelaide for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Customs House Port Adelaide is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customs House Port Adelaide until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, James mccosker. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of White Horse Hotel, Surry Hills

The article White Horse Hotel, Surry Hills has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Victory Hotel

The article Victory Hotel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable pub, known only for a fire. Fails WP:GNG and WP:1E.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia - discussion?

Hi James. As you can tell there is a growing sense in the community that you have been editing for pay without disclosing that. If you have been doing so, you may not be aware that under the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, you must - must - disclose any edits that you make for pay. Would you please reply here and let us know if you have been doing that? If you have been, and disclose now, things are probably fixable. Paid editors can be part of the community but only if they act ethically, and in accordance with the policies and guidelines. Please do reply and let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

James mccosker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My sincere pologies for the delay - I have been away. I would like to appeal the block on my editorial account related to abusing multiple accounts. I made a genuine mistake without being fully aware of the Wikipedia guidelines. The reason I was blocked is because I used more than one editorial account (from similar IP addresses) and sandboxes to make changes and updates. I did this to allow myself the opportunity to learn more about Wikipedia’s functionality and to trial different updates without affecting my main editorial account if I were to make a mistake. I have genuinely aimed to improve the profiles, including thoroughly researching the subject matter and ensuring all referencing was compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. I now understand that using multiple accounts is not an acceptable practice within Wikipedia guidelines and I will not do it again. To show my dedication to this, I propose to delete the other accounts used to make edits and only use my main editorial account for future edits and updates. I joined Wikipedia as I have a genuine interest in contributing to encyclopaedic information and using my skills and love for researching and writing to do so. If unblocked, I will continue to use my editorial account to make changes to Wikipedia profiles that strictly apply to guidelines and policies, for the benefit of the community.

Decline reason:

I agree with Bbb23's comments below. The editing history of your accounts does not look at all as though the use of multiple accounts was done in order to "learn more about Wikipedia’s functionality", and it is not clear that "without affecting my main editorial account if I were to make a mistake" doesn't mean "to make to appear that possibly controversial edits did not come from my main account, so that it won't be blocked." However, whatever your motivation in using multiple accounts, your purpose here is clearly for promotion of a particular company, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on promotional editing, and probably also in violation of the guidelines on conflict of interest and of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. All in all, there is no reason to believe that unblocking any of your accounts would be to the benefit of the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As a start, please list all the other accounts you've used.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other accounts are GarryEvan777 and Phil1371

Please learn to WP:SIGN your posts. What about the other accounts: Prancentral, JohBD, 144edward, and AliceAdela, to name but a few? Also, your offer to "delete" the other accounts is meaningless. First, accounts cannot be deleted. Second, they are all blocked anyway, so your offer is hollow. I also find your argument that you were unaware of Wikipedia's policies and your alleged goal of learning about Wikipedia's "functionality" to be utterly unconvincing. Even without an understanding of Wikipedia' sock puppetry policy, it's only commonsense that you shouldn't use multiple accounts to edit the same pages, particularly where your conflict of interest is so obvious. I'm curious to hear your answer to Jytdog's question below, but I can't imagine that I would unblock you given your misconduct and your single interest at Wikipedia. There is zero benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above Smartse informed you of the Terms of Use, and explicitly I asked you to disclose any relationships you have with Precision Group, etc. Please do so. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies once again Jytdog, as I mentioned below I was away and when I responded initially to unblock my account, I only addressed the matters in the box with the heading of “March 2016” and not your note to me above.

I certainly wish to address all the matters that have been queried, so I will now do so as follows:

I have no other Wikipedia accounts other than the ones I disclosed.
I am not a paid editor. If you properly examine the edits I have made, I am sure you will observe my independence of writing. I would also suggest that I would hope to have more than 1 client over the time that I have been editing on Wikipedia. Moreover, most of the content I have added has no direct relevance to the Precision Group, but only to the history of the properties they own. I do like to take my time in researching subjects and completing my writing one subject at a time. Further, I also note that I have made contributions to profiles on Wikipedia that have no association with the Precision Group (please see below).
I had been considering editing on Wikipedia for some time, but wished to find a subject that I could make a meaningful contribution to. Indeed I came across some of the Precision Group property profiles and noticed that they had not been updated for some time and thought they were a good opportunity to begin my involvement. As I progressed with each of them they lead me onto further property profiles which I thought were of benefit to the Wikipedia community.
Please note I was honoured to be acknowledged for my work on MacArthur Central by Kerry Raymond an experienced Wikipedia editor which I spent countless hours researching and improving.
My genuine motive as a contributor to Wikipedia can also be observed on the work I did on the Towers of Chevron Renaissance which is not a property associated with the Precision Group. Please note how I updated the profile and added appropriate references.
I also note that all edits I have made have always been well researched and properly referenced.

Finally, whilst I appreciate that I abused the Wikipedia multiple accounts protocol, I sincerely did not understand the issues behind them, that I do now, and will not do so ever again. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to respond on this matter and apologies for the delay in me doing so. James mccosker (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in giving people a chance to come clean and become members of the community, even when have done things that are very questionable. That is why I have written to you twice here. But what you just wrote is not credible on any level. I want to note this particularly cynical use of your sock, where you claimed to be a second person "reviewing" your own work. That belies any claim you have to any integrity. And btw, MacArthur Central is owned by Precision, and the Towers of Chevron Renaissance is associated with Chevron Renaissance Shopping Centre and contributes to the value to that property, which is owned by Precision. There is a place for paid editors in the community, but only when they act ethically and honestly, and in accordance with policies and guidelines. They can be great members of the community. But with your remarks above, whether you are actually paid or not (and it is very hard to believe you are not or have no connection to Precision, given your focus on properties owned by Precision), you have placed yourself completely outside the pale of assuming good faith. Goodbye. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Precision Group Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Precision Group Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]